This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Life on Europa redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for merging with Europa (moon) on 10 June 2016. The result of the discussion was merge. |
The contents of the Life on Europa page were merged into Europa (moon) on 26 June 2016 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Merge to Europa (moon). There is not enough information unique to this possibility of life on Europa to warrant a separate page on the subject. There might, in my opinion, be a page on the more general subject of life on icy moons with subsurface oceans, but the editor (DN-boards1) who created this page on life on Europa, and several other very similar pages, has chosen otherwise. Really, we don't need a fragmentation of Wiki into lots of micro pages. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 13:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment - I am aware there are proposed astrobiology mission to Europa, and am also aware that any info derived from them would be available in 13 or 20 years at best\, so it is premature to create an article based on the same speculation (even if from 100 sources). We already toned down 3 of your sensationalist "life articles", and in my opinion, this stub still stands only because the planet actually has a habitability potential. Again: at this point of knowledge, a concise subsection in Europa with high quality references on its habitability potential should suffice. Merging the key concepts and papers is not censure, is responsible editing. - BatteryIncluded ( talk) 23:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppoose. There is enough material available to go beyond what should be said in the parent article.
Comment It's been a month. Someone wanna close this with No consensus? Because that's what it seems like to me. -- DN-boards1 ( talk) 03:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - The article is capable of further expansion, and I believe that will be happening in coming months and years. I also agree a close is called for, and I see no consensus to merge as well. Jus da fax 12:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Merge this is already well-covered in the main Europa (moon) article, and will continue to be because the speculation about life there is the only reason it's an exploration priority (sorry, but you know it's true). If you move that stuff over here, you'll have two half-articles, instead of one quality article (Europa) and this, which seems to be a stub about some hypothetical mission that may or may not ever fly. Geogene ( talk) 19:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - Those who want to expand the article should have the chance to do so. Life on Europa is not a established fact, but neither is Life on Mars, which hasn't stopped WP having an article about the speculation and the research. Kalidasa 777 ( talk) 20:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Support - I feel the need for them to merged mainly because the article is only eight sentences in total. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 03:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
In his characteristic style, user DN-boards1 still won't get the scientific terminology straight. Assessing the satellite's habitability (inert physical environments) is not "looking for life". This page, again misrepresents the sources into falsehood. A waste of electrons having to cleanup after this guy daily. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 03:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Let's discuss the revert by Isambard Kingdom of my expansion of the very short section titled "Plumes." The referenced source is quite clear on the current status of the possible plumes, and giving that information improves the article, in my view. The edit summary is of additional concern, in my view, as it certainly can not be considered welcoming to a first-time editor to the article. Jus da fax 13:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a valid basis for the tags at the top. Though still very short, the article is well-referenced, and I suggest we remove both tags. Jus da fax 13:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I propose that Life on Europa be merged into Europa. The content in the Life on Europa article doesn't contain any information not already covered by Europa, and the Europa article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Life on Europa will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. MartinZ02 ( talk) 22:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Life on Europa redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for merging with Europa (moon) on 10 June 2016. The result of the discussion was merge. |
The contents of the Life on Europa page were merged into Europa (moon) on 26 June 2016 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Merge to Europa (moon). There is not enough information unique to this possibility of life on Europa to warrant a separate page on the subject. There might, in my opinion, be a page on the more general subject of life on icy moons with subsurface oceans, but the editor (DN-boards1) who created this page on life on Europa, and several other very similar pages, has chosen otherwise. Really, we don't need a fragmentation of Wiki into lots of micro pages. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 13:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment - I am aware there are proposed astrobiology mission to Europa, and am also aware that any info derived from them would be available in 13 or 20 years at best\, so it is premature to create an article based on the same speculation (even if from 100 sources). We already toned down 3 of your sensationalist "life articles", and in my opinion, this stub still stands only because the planet actually has a habitability potential. Again: at this point of knowledge, a concise subsection in Europa with high quality references on its habitability potential should suffice. Merging the key concepts and papers is not censure, is responsible editing. - BatteryIncluded ( talk) 23:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppoose. There is enough material available to go beyond what should be said in the parent article.
Comment It's been a month. Someone wanna close this with No consensus? Because that's what it seems like to me. -- DN-boards1 ( talk) 03:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - The article is capable of further expansion, and I believe that will be happening in coming months and years. I also agree a close is called for, and I see no consensus to merge as well. Jus da fax 12:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Merge this is already well-covered in the main Europa (moon) article, and will continue to be because the speculation about life there is the only reason it's an exploration priority (sorry, but you know it's true). If you move that stuff over here, you'll have two half-articles, instead of one quality article (Europa) and this, which seems to be a stub about some hypothetical mission that may or may not ever fly. Geogene ( talk) 19:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - Those who want to expand the article should have the chance to do so. Life on Europa is not a established fact, but neither is Life on Mars, which hasn't stopped WP having an article about the speculation and the research. Kalidasa 777 ( talk) 20:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Support - I feel the need for them to merged mainly because the article is only eight sentences in total. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 03:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
In his characteristic style, user DN-boards1 still won't get the scientific terminology straight. Assessing the satellite's habitability (inert physical environments) is not "looking for life". This page, again misrepresents the sources into falsehood. A waste of electrons having to cleanup after this guy daily. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 03:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Let's discuss the revert by Isambard Kingdom of my expansion of the very short section titled "Plumes." The referenced source is quite clear on the current status of the possible plumes, and giving that information improves the article, in my view. The edit summary is of additional concern, in my view, as it certainly can not be considered welcoming to a first-time editor to the article. Jus da fax 13:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a valid basis for the tags at the top. Though still very short, the article is well-referenced, and I suggest we remove both tags. Jus da fax 13:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I propose that Life on Europa be merged into Europa. The content in the Life on Europa article doesn't contain any information not already covered by Europa, and the Europa article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Life on Europa will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. MartinZ02 ( talk) 22:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)